Turkey: Zaman Newspaper
Lord Hannay of Chiswick Excerpts(8 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, the proposal itself is welcome in that, in outline as it stands, it would break the business model enjoyed by the most evil people that I can think of beyond Daesh—the human traffickers who make people’s lives a misery by promising a life in Europe as the automatic result of getting on a leaky boat in the Mediterranean and risking their life, along with the lives of their children. I absolutely understand my noble friend’s point and I assure him that the Prime Minister will bear in mind the concerns that underlie his question.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, does not the Minister agree that the best way of bringing effective and continuing pressure on the Turkish Government over matters of press freedom and human rights is to open some new chapters in their accession negotiations, which would provide real leverage on Turkey? The failure to do so has meant that the EU’s leverage has been very weak in recent years.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
The noble Lord makes a very strong point. The 35 chapters of the accession negotiations were opened in 2005, and progress through them has indeed been taking some time. It is a matter of further discussion whether and how further chapters might be opened. Clearly, requests are being made by Turkey, but the noble Lord’s point is right: it provides leverage.
Overseas Territories Joint Ministerial Council
Lord Hannay of Chiswick Excerpts(8 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, my noble friend is right to refer to the fact that the overseas territories involved in discussions about beneficial ownership are international financial centres, which is an appropriate way to describe them. My noble friend is right to point out that paragraph 16 refers to,
“technical dialogue between the Overseas Territories and UK law enforcement authorities on further developing a timely, safe and secure information exchange process to increase our collective effectiveness for the purposes of law enforcement”.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, will the Minister confirm that I was right in noting that in the long list of subjects that was covered by the council in its discussions in the past few days, there was no reference to the possible effect on the overseas territories of a vote to leave the European Union, which would presumably have extremely important implications for them as far as aid, trade and the movement of people are concerned? Will she say whether this matter was discussed and whether the Government are helping the overseas territories to understand what the implications would be? Will she say whether the Government of Gibraltar really appreciate and understand that if this country were to vote to leave, Gibraltar will leave too, however it votes, and that its border with Spain will become an external border of the European Union, not an internal border?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, I assure the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, as I have done during the passage through this House of the European Union Referendum Bill, that we take responsibility for advising Gibraltar of the impact of its membership of the EU—through the fact that we are a member—and of its rights and responsibilities and the consequences that flow from them. I have also made it clear that we work in partnership with Gibraltar and that Gibraltar will be taking its own decisions about how to implement the European Union Referendum Bill. I am sure we will be further able to discuss with Gibraltar the broader issues about trade and the other matters to which the noble Lord referred.
With regard to the impact on other overseas territories, the noble Lord makes a very interesting point, and I shall certainly take it back.
European Union Referendum Bill
Lord Hannay of Chiswick Excerpts(8 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, as the Minister was kind enough to refer to the paternity—or maternity—of this amendment, and as the one I tabled at an earlier stage was the start of this story, I thank her for the great care she has taken in looking at this extremely complex matter. Unlike the noble Lord who preceded me, I shall address only the amendments on today’s Marshalled List and not spend a lot of time on amendments that are not being moved and are not, therefore, appropriate for discussion today. Nor will I claim the credit for this not very likely eventuality being made a lot less so. That should go entirely to your Lordships’ Constitution Committee, which first spotted the risk of gaming and asked for it to be addressed by the House; I responded to that request.
As regards the amendments that we are discussing, I know that the noble Baroness has worked extremely hard on this very tangled subject. She knows that, in my view, the distinction she has made concerning the broadcasting rights is absolutely right: they should not be one-sided under any circumstances, and I made that clear when she discussed the matter with me informally at an early stage. As to the government-funded portion that follows designation, I am entirely prepared to follow her wisdom in this matter. I think the balance has been very carefully crafted and achieves the maximum deterrence to gaming, whether deliberate or inadvertent. That is an important issue because gaming could happen inadvertently or deliberately, and the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, referred to that. We probably now have a text which, if and when the House approves it, will make it extremely unlikely that this will happen, and far more unlikely than the text of the original Bill, unamended, would have done. Therefore, I commend that. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, will withdraw his amendment. This amendment would merely muddy the waters yet again, and therefore make the risk of gaming, or inadvertent events, more likely. I am delighted that he will withdraw his amendment and offer my support to the Minister.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, I am very disappointed that my noble friend will withdraw his amendment but relieved to find at least something during our discussion on this Bill on which I disagree with him. I very much appreciate the way my noble friend the Minister has listened to the debate and brought forward amendments, although, at this last stage, I am very disappointed that she has brought forward this particular amendment, and even more disappointed by the briefing from the Electoral Commission—a body that costs more than half the cost of the entire Royal Family and therefore is very well resourced indeed. The Electoral Commission suggests that this amendment is helpful. The reason I am disappointed by its response is that it is suggesting that, in the event of there being only one campaign, the amount that that campaign can spend should be increased even further. Even at this late stage, we are faced with a Bill that allows one side—the stay side—to spend more than twice as much as the leave side. To my mind, that entirely defeats the purpose of having expense limits, which are meant to ensure that people are not able to buy a result. My noble friend said in her opening remarks that it was very important that the Bill was seen to be fair. Indeed, in moderating the original amendment that the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, put forward, she has made some progress in that direction. However, the Bill remains extremely unfair in that one side is able to spend considerably more, although this amendment takes away the state funding and the broadcasting funding in the event of there being one campaign. I entirely accept that that is a sensible change.
However, I am concerned that the Electoral Commission is judge and jury in its own court. It decides what is a designated campaign. In the event that it decided that none of the campaigns that was in favour of, say, leaving the European Union was suitable, we would be faced, as a result of this amendment, with one side being a designated campaign and having very considerable resources. Everyone who has spoken so far has said it is very unlikely that that would happen. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, on having spent the entire time that we have spent discussing the Bill trying to amend it to make it one-sided to help his particular cause.
European Union Referendum Bill
Lord Hannay of Chiswick Excerpts(9 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 24C. In doing so, I pay tribute to the Minister for the way in which she has listened to the points raised, with some force and detail, in Committee. With the two amendments that she has produced today—Amendment 24A, in response to an amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, which I also felt was absolutely justified, so I am delighted that she has picked up his amendment and turned it into a government one, and Amendment 24B, which deals with matters that I and others raised—I think that she has made a major effort to meet the point that we made in Committee, and which I continue to make, which is that there will be a need for the electorate to receive factual, objective information from the Government about these extremely complex matters, additional to any information that will come to them, no doubt in tsunamis of rhetoric, from the two campaigns. The campaigns will be advocates but the electorate has to make a judgment, and it will be of essential value to them to have objective factual material provided by the Government. That is why we were extremely dissatisfied with the absence of any provision for this in the original Bill that was drafted by the Government and which came to us with the imprimatur of the other place because we felt that it was a completely inadequate basis on which to move forward to what is after all, as the Prime Minister said, one of the most significant and important decisions that this country has had to take for many decades. So that is a very good step forward.
I shall explain why we felt that the Government should be prepared to go further and be a bit more specific than they are in Amendment 24B, or at least than they were before the Minister gave some rather helpful clarifications this afternoon. I shall take two examples—two sub-headings—that illustrate the amendments that I and others have proposed. I start with Gibraltar because the Minister has mentioned it. What the effects of withdrawal would be is of importance to more people than just the people of Gibraltar. Our own wider electorate needs to know that Gibraltar became part of the EU only because it was a dependent territory for whose foreign affairs the United Kingdom was responsible. That was the sole basis on which it became a member, and therefore if the UK left, it would leave. That has quite important implications for the vexed issue of the land border with Spain, for example, which would cease to be an internal border of the EU and would become an external one. These are facts, not matters of opinion; they do not seek to draw the Government on to what would come after an Article 50 negotiation or anything like that. They are just so that the electorate knows that, the moment they cast their votes, certain consequences could follow from it.
Secondly, I take the law and order issue. The European arrest warrant was debated at enormous length in both Houses at the time of the Protocol 36 negotiations two years ago. It became apparent during that debate that the European arrest warrant is extraordinarily important for this country in terms of recovering indicted criminals from abroad and returning EU citizens who are accused of often very heinous crimes from here to the country where they have been indicted. These are hugely important for our law and order and our battle against international crime.
In those debates, it also became apparent how important the European arrest warrant is for the Good Friday agreement and what goes on in Northern Ireland because it has depoliticised the extradition arrangements between Ireland and Northern Ireland. In the past, they have been highly politicised and have led to a number of very unsatisfactory discussions between the two Governments, often not leading to the return of criminals who have committed terrible offences. Therefore it is important for the electorate to know that the European arrest warrant would disappear in this country if we left. I am not talking about what we might try to put in its place, the fantasies about negotiating 27 extradition agreements with the other member states or anything like that. I do not want to go there. That is not where the amendment was intended to go.
This afternoon, the Minister has given some important clarifications on a large number of the detailed specifics that I introduced. I and others will need to study them with great care. However, on the point about Gibraltar and the devolved Administrations, I entirely understand what she is saying—that it would not be right for the Government, off their own bat, to write in a report what the consequences were going to be for Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales or Gibraltar without consulting them and without having their view—but I hope that in her reply to this debate the Minister will go a little further. She said that the devolved Administrations and Gibraltar will be able to produce their own reports. That is fine. They would be reports to their parts of the electorate. I do not imagine—I do not speak in any disparaging way—that they will be widely read by the electorate of this country, yet the issues involve the electorate of the whole United Kingdom. Therefore, I hope that she will be able to say that after consultation with the Government of Gibraltar and the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland Administrations and assuming—I do not see why they should have any objection—that they are willing to do so, the Government will include the implications for the Administrations of Northern Ireland, Wales, Scotland and Gibraltar in the report to which Amendment 24B refers. This will allow the whole electorate to have a proper sight of all the implications. Frankly, those implications, particularly with regard to Northern Ireland and also to Scotland and Wales, could be very far-ranging. Therefore, I hope that when the Minister replies to this debate, she will able to cover that point.
We are making progress now. I shall listen with great care to the Minister’s reply. Others who proposed this amendment may wish to take up other points on which they would like to have clarification. Meanwhile, I look forward with interest to the Minister’s reply.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch (UKIP)
My Lords, buried somewhere in this group of amendments and, I think, in the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, is the question about what happens on Brexit to all the EU law which is now sewn into our domestic law. That law will remain valid until repealed. I hope that it will be helpful to your Lordships if I recall that in 1997 I got a Bill through its Second Reading in your Lordships’ House, on a vote, that would have taken the UK out of the EU. The same question arose, since one is not allowed to table Bills which cannot be executed in practice. At the time, the clerks’ advice was that it would have taken about a dozen parliamentary draftsmen about one month to identify all the EU legislation that was then part of our domestic law. The laws that the Government of the day wanted to repeal could have been brought before Parliament either singly or collectively for Parliament to repeal. Of course, the volume of EU law would be much larger now, the draftsmen required rather more numerous and/or the timescale proportionately greater. However, I make the point that the process and its happy outcome would be the same, and there is no reason why it should not be undertaken.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick
I point out that I am not in receipt of such a pension. If the noble Lord was referring to me, perhaps he will withdraw the reference. I am not sure who he thinks he was referring to among those on the Order Paper, but as far as I am concerned, I am not and never have been in receipt of a pension from the European Union. I ask the noble Lord to consider the fact that he will have ample opportunity in the name of his party to put forward his views, including those on the giant octopus in Brussels, which seems to be taking a day out today. The purpose of this amendment was not as he has erroneously described it; the purpose of this amendment was to persuade the Government, which we will perhaps succeed in doing, to provide factual, objective information that will enable the electorate to make up their mind on the point the noble Lord raises.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch
My Lords, if the noble Lord is not in receipt of an EU pension, I have nothing to clarify. I do not have to name names. I am referring to previous employees of the European Union—in particular, of the Commission—who are in receipt of EU pensions, which they can lose if they go against the interests of the European Union. If no one feels guilty in that regard, of course they have nothing to say. On the amendment, I am going into the fundamental reasons why it is misguided, and with the noble Lord’s permission, I will continue.
It is some time since I reminded your Lordships of that founding idea, which was that the European nations had caused so much bloodshed over the centuries that they had to be gradually emasculated and put under a new form of technocratic government that was to supplant national democracy, which it has indeed done; hence the EU’s absurd claim to have brought peace to Europe since 1945, which was instead of course secured by NATO; hence also the huge but little-understood powers of the unelected Commission, with its monopoly to propose new legislation, in secret—which is now so much of our own legislation—and then to execute that legislation when it has been through the Brussels sausage machine, imposing heavy fines along the way, and subject only to that engine of EU integration, the Luxembourg court. The Commission also manages the EU budget—so badly that its accounts have not been signed off for 21 years. Believe it or not, the Commission also negotiates all our foreign trade agreements—so badly that we still do not have a free trade agreement with China, India, Russia, the USA, Australia, Canada and many of the markets of the future. Singapore has had them all for 10 years. Who knows what that failure has cost our economy; the amendment refers to our economy.
As to what is left of our democracy while we stay in the EU, the Euro-lie goes that it is upheld in the Council of Ministers from the nation states, where we have only 12% of the votes and where we have been defeated on every single one of the 55 new laws we have opposed since 1996.
My first point is, therefore, that even if we did get any advantage from our EU membership, in any of the areas mentioned in the amendment, it would still not be worth it because the price would have been our democracy. However, the fact is that we do not, as my noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke will confirm.
Europhiles try to frighten us by pretending that jobs would be lost if we left the EU. We are back to the economy again.
Lord Grocott
I do not think there is any disagreement about the need to provide precise factual information so that people can make the judgment that they will have make when the referendum is called. That is clearly a benefit. The difficulty that arises—it is pretty obvious to me and I hope I can convince any doubters that it ought to be to all of us—is in determining what is factual, unarguable, objective information and what is a matter of judgment.
Looking at the amendments, I can certainly give an example of what is factual and what is not. For example, government Amendment 24B—leaving aside just for a moment the doubts of the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, about which countries might be included—is close to a factual requirement,
“examples of countries that do not have membership of the European Union but do have other arrangements with the European Union (describing, in the case of each country given as an example, those arrangements).”
Admittedly, the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, made me waver a bit when I heard his comments. There is deep uncertainty as to precisely which countries would be covered by this—perhaps the Minister will answer that point in her reply—but if you gave that to 10 top civil servants and said, “Right, you have to draw up these facts, these details, on this precise point”, they would roughly be in the same territory. They would spell out what deal Norway had got, what deal Switzerland had got and so on.
By complete contrast, I have to disagree with the Liberal Front Bench strongly over the idea that Amendment 24C, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, involves a kind of clear, objective and unarguable description about the consequences of withdrawal. The game is given away in the language of the very first line of the amendment:
“The report shall cover the possible consequences of withdrawal”.
The term “possible consequences” contains within itself the possibility of different considerations that need to be brought into account in the event of withdrawal. The language of the amendment itself admits the possibility of debate, discussion and uncertainty. I am not a lawyer, but if that ever passed on to the statute book and 10 civil servants were asked to give a precise answer on those points, they would come up with 10 different solutions.
I will complete that point by including one particularly contentious example. I mentioned this in Committee but make absolutely no apology for mentioning it again. Amendment 24C says:
“The report shall cover the possible consequences of withdrawal from the European Union, including information on the effects of withdrawal upon … (g) the provision of financial support for agriculture in each region of the United Kingdom”.
Does that or does that not include a consideration of what support agriculture would get in the event of withdrawal from the common agricultural policy? In my book, of course that would be a possible consequence of leaving the European Union: there would be subventions from the British Treasury to British agriculture. The levels of that would be unknown, but it is a fair bet in my book that they would at least be equal to the colossal sums that we contribute to the common agricultural policy under the present arrangements. Whether I am right or wrong does not really matter: all I am saying is that the language of the amendment itself means that that is inevitably the kind of debate that would take place. Clearly, you cannot talk about the possible consequences of withdrawal from the CAP without giving some consideration to what sort of support would come from a country that was outside the EU. In trying to pretend that that is a kind of objective consideration, the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, must allow himself a little smile.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick
I am not smiling very much. As I explained in Committee, that was not the intention of the people moving these sorts of amendments. We wish to have a factual, objective statement of the consequences of withdrawal. I noticed with some pleasure that when the Minister opened the debate this afternoon, she included a recognition that there would need to be, in the paper provided under Amendment 24B, some consideration of that matter. I never suggested—and I twice replied to the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, on this point in Committee—that we should go into the speculative area of what the Government might do to replace the common agricultural policy, which would have been withdrawn from British farmers. I am sorry, but the noble Lord is simply barking up the wrong tree. There is therefore no difference between us and no difference with the Minister. This is important information. It was not intended to enter the speculative realm of what would replace it.
Lord Grocott
In that case, the noble Lord really should have put down a different amendment. In my book, possible consequences means possible consequences. Possible consequences of withdrawal from one organisation will include what will happen to the beneficiaries, if that is the right word, of the common agricultural policy in the event of withdrawal. If there is no possibility of uncertainty, remove “possible” from the amendment. The noble Lord has to defend his amendment as written. In any conversation interpreting the meaning of the amendment as written, there would be any number of possible—I use the word myself again—ways in which the consequences of withdrawal could be written.
I think that the noble Lord will be frank enough, as am I, to admit that he does not come from a completely neutral position. If he thought that his amendment would result in a large number of statements and heavy tracts one or two inches thick pointing out what disastrous consequences there would be for Britain if it remained within the European Union, I am quite sure that he would not have put the amendment down. He has put the amendment down precisely because it is consistent with his perfectly sincerely held view—and we know that almost irrespective of what the Prime Minister brings back he will be voting to stay. I just find it unacceptable in terms of the language.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick
I am sorry, but I really must reply to this point about possible consequences. If I had put “consequences” without “possible” that would have entered the speculative realm because it would have needed to bring in what was done to replace the common agricultural policy. By putting “possible consequences” it merely stays in the factual realm—what will be removed from the British agricultural sector if we were to leave. It does not enter into the conjectural area of what would replace it. That was the reason for the wording.
Lord Grocott
I think actually it is much clearer from the noble Lord’s perspective if he says “consequences” and does not put “possible”. I think we are beginning to dance on pinheads now, but test it out in the pub. What are the possible consequences of you not paying for your pint? There are a whole range of possible consequences. Anyone who is asked might say: you might go to prison; it might result in a fight. Any number of consequences are possible from an objective fact. The objective fact, which is acknowledged, would be withdrawal from the common agricultural policy. I am simply putting to the noble Lord that with “possible consequences” the language itself implies that there could be lots of different interpretations. I put it no stronger than that.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick
I know that the noble Lord made the point about acting together, but I do not think that it really answers the point made to him by the noble Lord, Lord Grocott. These lists are highly selective. In the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, all right, some items stand on their own, but let us take paragraph (e) in Amendment 24C, which covers,
“law enforcement, security and justice in the United Kingdom and in the devolved jurisdictions”.
Of course there will be arguments both ways. One noble Baroness referred to the European arrest warrant as though that were self-evidently all in one direction, but a published analysis of it might give rise to a lot of argument about the rights of people who are wrongly prosecuted, or of the innocent who are extradited.
Many people have anxieties about the whole theory of parity of esteem of the justice systems of different countries in the EU. Can anyone really say that the justice systems of Bulgaria or Romania are equal to ours—that we have as much confidence in them as we do in our own UK system—and that therefore there should be automaticity of extradition? I say that because the idea that these things can be reduced to simple formulae, to black and white or to one particular viewpoint is not correct.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick
I remind the noble Lord that both Houses of Parliament recently voted for resolutions which stated that the European arrest warrant was in the national interest of the United Kingdom. Presumably it is reasonable, therefore, that it should be stated in a government report that it would cease to apply to us if we left the European Union.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick
Yes, Parliament has voted for it—but if we are having a referendum, everything is up for argument. The public have been given the right to dispute and to vote. Equally, paragraph (f) of the noble Lord’s amendment refers to,
“those regions of the United Kingdom that qualify for structural funds”.
I imagine that that would have a big impact in certain regions of the north of England, but other people in the south might attach equal importance to the fact that we did not have to make a budget contribution across the exchanges any longer.
The point that I am trying to make is that these things cannot all be reduced to black and white. The truth is grey: there is no such thing as complete impartiality in all these arguments. That comes back to a very important point made by the noble Lord, Lord Owen, who quite rightly and with tremendous force reminded the House that we may be in danger of overstepping the mark. As I think he was hinting—although he had the graciousness not to say so—I suspect that a lot of these amendments are being put forward for rather self-interested motives from the side that people find themselves on in this argument.
So rather than seeking after some elusive impartiality that does not exist, let both sides slog it out in argument. Let the Government, as they have said, publish a White Paper saying what they think is the result of the negotiations and why they think we should stay in, if that is what they think—and they probably will—but let us not go beyond that into an area that is highly disputable. Each side can put its case best, rather than the Government trying to argue a case that they are fundamentally opposed to.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, I believe I have answered that question twice. I would test the patience of the House were I to repeat myself a second time.
With regard to the devolved Administrations in the renegotiation, as foreign policy issues are reserved matters, relations with the European Union are the responsibility of Parliament and the Government of the UK. However, the UK Government involve the devolved Administrations as directly and fully as possible in decision-making in EU matters that touch on devolved areas. Further, Ministers have held meetings with representatives of the devolved Administrations. Most recently, the Minister for Europe met Fiona Hyslop MSP, the Cabinet Secretary for Culture, Europe and External Affairs, on 11 November to discuss the EU reform process. The renegotiation is now a standing item at quarterly meetings of the Joint Ministerial Committee on Europe, which allows Ministers from the devolved Administrations to feed in their views ahead of the meetings of European Councils. The next such meeting is next month. I hope that is the information that the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, requested.
The noble Lord also asked whether the report described under Amendment 24B would cover matters such as structural funds and how they impact on the region. I thank the noble Lord for his contribution to this debate. He reminded us of the importance of these matters at Second Reading, in Committee and, quite rightly, now, too. I remarked in my opening speech that the report under government Amendment 24B would indeed cover important rights such as the right to apply for structural funds. Where appropriate, we will set this information in context. However, again, I am not in a position to set out the exact contents of the report today. Clearly, it is a matter of making sure that the information is as balanced and full as is appropriate.
I was also asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, and the noble Lord, Lord Lea of Crondall, whether employment rights would be covered. I briefly referred to that in my opening remarks, but they were quite detailed, so I can give the assurance that employment rights would be covered under the report required by government Amendment 24B, as indeed would the rights of EU citizens referred to by the noble Baronesses, Lady Smith of Newnham and Lady Morgan. They would be covered by Amendment 24B.
In coming to my final words on this group of amendments, I reflect on the fact that what we have sought to achieve is to listen to the request of the House to table amendments that provide a factual basis on which people can make up their minds when they cast their votes. Government Amendments 24A and 24B will ensure that the public are crystal clear on what EU membership currently entails for the UK and how the EU has been reformed. This will enable them to make their decisions in an informed way at the referendum.
The Government reports are intended to be informative, objective and evidence-based. It will be for others—the campaigners—to then take from the report such information as perhaps fits their case, and to use it with regard to other information they may have when they talk about risk assessments and views. That is a matter for another day, although I know we have had quite a flavour of it today.
In conclusion, when Amendment 24A is called in its place, I will move it, and Amendment 24B. I hope they will both be acceptable to the House and I hope the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, will not press his Amendment 24C as an amendment to Amendment 24B. I beg to move.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick
I wish to reply to the Minister briefly and thank her for her contribution in replying to the debate. She has clarified a number of issues which were raised by me and others who put their names to the amendments. Her clarifications were basically very helpful. We have had a long debate. I would describe it as slightly a curate’s egg of a debate. My motives have not been so traduced since Fidel Castro’s representative on the UN Security Council had a little rant about British foreign policy, but I am used to these things and I am not objecting too much to that. I, and those who tabled the amendment, will study the Minister’s words with very great care. She weighed them carefully before she said them, both in the introduction and in responding to the debate. We will consider them very carefully. We may return to them on Third Reading, but in the mean time I do not intend to take the opinion of the House on this amendment.
European Union Referendum Bill
Lord Hannay of Chiswick Excerpts(9 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
“Designation of organisation for only one of the possible outcomesSection 108 of the 2000 Act (assistance for designated organisations) has effect for the purposes of the referendum as if—
(a) at the end of subsection (2)(a), for “but” there were substituted “or”; and(b) for subsection (2)(b) there were substituted—“(b) may designate a permitted participant in relation to only one of the possible outcomes.””
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, I rise to move this highly technical amendment. Other Members of the House may have as much difficulty as I do in understanding the precise wording. As very often is the case when we are working with reference to other bits of legislation, it is a bit abstruse. However, rather than subject the House to yet another lengthy dissertation from myself, I shall read from the Constitution Committee’s report on this point. The committee said that the 2000 Act,
“provides for a designated organisation to be appointed by the Electoral Commission as a lead campaign group for each side of the referendum debate. It does not allow the Electoral Commission to designate one organisation only; for there to be any designated organisations in a referendum campaign at least one from each side must apply … This arguably allows one side in a campaign to ‘game’ the system. If they are well funded but do not want the other campaign to receive the financial and other advantages of designation, then they simply fail to apply for designation. Notably, there was no designation in the Welsh referendum in 2011 because the Electoral Commission took the view that there were no lead campaigners that met the statutory test of adequately representing the ‘No’ side. The danger of gaming was also raised in the context of the Scottish independence referendum. The Scottish Independence Referendum Act 2013 attempted to overcome this potential problem by allowing for the designation of one side only, although in the end two campaigns did indeed apply for recognition … Whilst we consider it likely that there will indeed be applications for designation by each side, the House may wish to consider whether the Bill should be amended to avoid a situation where one side could, in effect, prevent the lead campaign group on the other side from being designated”—
and, of course, from getting funds.
My amendment simply uses the wording of the amendment in the Scottish Act, which the Government agreed to put into the Scottish Act; it is replicated here, I hope in the correct place and the correct way, to have exactly the same effect as took place in Scotland.
It will not have escaped your Lordships’ notice that it never had to be used in Scotland. That is the purpose of moving this amendment. If it is accepted by the Government and put on the face of the Bill, there will not be a problem, because the certainty that one side can get itself designated even if the other side does not, and can therefore be a recipient of funds, will mean that the other side has no interest whatever in gaming the system. So I hope that this can be discussed on a totally technical, non-political basis, because I think that the Bill will be improved by the inclusion of this provision—and once we have included it, we can just forget all about it.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 37 in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, and also to say how much I support the amendment just proposed by the noble Lord. I think that this might be a first in consideration of this Bill, but I think that it is a very sensible proposal.
Amendment 37 is following the same theme, which is ensuring that there is fairness in the conduct of the campaign. I was rather shocked this morning to read Hansard from the other place, where Mr Chope asked the Deputy Leader of the House of Commons to,
“confirm that the real reason why three independently minded former Ministers are being purged”,
from the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe,
“is because we voted in favour of a free and fair EU referendum with a strict 28-day purdah period, as recommended by the Council of Europe’s Venice Commission and our Electoral Commission?”.—[Official Report, Commons, 3/11/15; col. 887.]
I do not want to get involved in that particular row, except to say that Christopher Chope, Sir Edward Leigh and Cheryl Gillan are three very distinguished former Ministers, and I am very shocked that they should be removed from the Council of Europe, and even more shocked that it should be suggested that that is the reason for their removal.
I emphasise this point because, whatever the outcome of the referendum, it is important that at the end of it people feel that the Government did not abuse their position—whatever their position turns out to be—and that the campaign was conducted in a fair and balanced way. This, presumably, is why we have the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000.
My amendment seeks to remove from political parties their ability, which arises from the 2000 Act, to spend money on the campaign itself. I thought that the whole point of having an Electoral Commission—which, incidentally, costs half the cost of the entire Royal Family—was to ensure that we had fair and balanced conduct of elections and referenda. That is what I thought it was about. I thought the whole purpose in having a designated campaign on each side with limitations on their expenses was to ensure fairness. But what do I find? I find that the Government have brought into the Bill the ability of the political parties to spend money in addition to the designated campaigns. In the case of the designated “in” campaign, it can spend £7 million; in the case of the “out” campaign, it can spend £7 million. That is fair enough; but then on the inside, the Labour Party can spend £7 million; the Liberal Democrats can spend £3 million; the Greens can spend £700,000 and the CBI and other organisations can spend £700,000.
The Conservatives have said that they will remain neutral—and it is very considerably to the credit of the Conservative board that it took that decision.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, Amendment 34 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, would allow the Electoral Commission to designate a lead campaigner for one side of the argument at this referendum without having to appoint one for the other. This would override the current rules that apply for designated lead organisations. These provide that the commission must designate a lead campaigner on each side, or not at all. The reason for this is clearly, as noble Lords have argued tonight, that in such matters there should be as fair a playing field as possible.
In the case of multiple applications for designation as a lead campaigner, the Electoral Commission must appoint for each side the applicant which represents “to the greatest extent” those campaigning for a particular outcome. This is intended to ensure the designation of organisations which represent the broad spread of opinion on each side. The benefits then available to the designated lead organisations ensure that each side of the argument has a fair opportunity to put its case to the wider voting public. Taken together, these provisions aim to ensure informed voting after a vibrant debate.
However, the rules for this referendum must also ensure that the referendum is run fairly and that we do not create any perception of bias. The principle that the Electoral Commission cannot designate on just one side is intended to support that objective. The benefits available to the designated lead organisations are significant. I am talking not about political parties per se—they may not end up being designated as lead organisations—but organisations designated by the Electoral Commission as lead organisations.
Allowing public funds to be used to create a distorted campaign with only one designated lead organisation would naturally raise public concern. This would clearly be the case where the commission receives applications from both sides but does not consider that those on one side meet the statutory tests. Under the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, in this circumstance the arguments of the side that does not get appointed would not get a fair hearing. The administrative failings of those who failed to meet the statutory test should not invalidate the right of both sides to an equal opportunity to make their respective cases.
There is, of course, the view that this amendment may help avoid a circumstance where one side deliberately refuses to apply for designation to prevent the other side receiving its benefits. This could occur, for example, if one side lacks the funding to take advantage of the benefits, particularly the higher spending limits, or wishes to avoid debate on an issue of low public interest. I do not think any noble Lord is going to suggest that this case will be a matter be of low public interest. That is not going to be a feature of this referendum. Given the public interest in the referendum, a more cynical attempt to deprive the other side of the benefits of designation surely would be widely reported and deeply harmful to a campaigner’s own cause—it would be seen as being a cheat.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick
The noble Baroness seems to have come to the end of a passage which contains no explanation of why the Government legislated in the case of Scotland to deal with this potential problem, and no recognition of the fact that by so legislating they ensured that there was no problem. All her suggestions that this might seem to be unfair will not come about if this amendment is accepted, because there will then be two designated organisations and no interest whatever in gaming.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, the noble Lord’s amendment does not achieve that. It allows for one-sided designation. The noble Lord referred to Scotland. That was a matter for the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament, not the UK Government. In respect of the Scottish referendum, the Electoral Commission commented that the approach of having one-sided designation possible was appropriate in the specific circumstances of the independence referendum to reduce the risk of,
“a tactical decision not to apply for designation”.
However, it says that in other circumstances that does not necessarily pertain. So we would certainly argue that having one-sided designation could unduly damage proper and fair treatment of the arguments that need to be put forward.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick
The noble Baroness has not made a very persuasive case for me to withdraw my amendment. I am not referring to other amendments in the group. She has spoken, if I understand her rightly, as if Scotland were a faraway, foreign state with which we had nothing to do. When the legislation was passed to enact the referendum in Scotland it was felt that this provision needed to be put in to prevent any possibility of gaming. Our own Constitution Committee has warned the House—and that includes the Minister—that there is a risk of that here, and the Government appear not to wish to take any account of it.
When it is suggested that to put such a provision in would make the playing field less even, that is to ignore the fact that if there were gaming which resulted in there being no single designated organisation on one side, that would mean there would be no funds for the other side and there would be a level playing field: it would be nuclear winter. That would not be, I suggest, a satisfactory playing field on which to play, any more than nuclear winter is satisfactory. If we deprive an organisation that has properly designated itself of any possibility to get funds in the campaign, I do not think the Minister would think that that would be a very fair way to proceed. I do not quite know how we are to move forward on this.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
I was trying not to force my way in, as I must sometimes do: I know that noble Lords have been lively today. I sought to point out earlier that the Government have evaluated the risk with regard to the referendum on the European Union, remain or leave, and put it in the category where we feel that there is enough public interest that there will be somebody who will apply—and not just one, perhaps more—to be considered as a designated lead campaigner. So that will not arise. Clearly, I did not make enough of an effort to explain it in full, but I hoped I had set out the dangers there would be if the Electoral Commission appointed only one lead campaigner and the voice of another could be stifled to the benefit of one.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick
The noble Baroness is ignoring a risk. It may not be a very high risk and if this amendment were accepted it would be a nil risk. She seems to be saying that the Government would prefer to run even a very small risk of this situation occurring than put a provision in the Bill which made it absolutely certain that it would not occur. I feel that that is a little unreasonable.
The noble Baroness will have noticed that my amendment has been supported on all sides of the Committee and both sides of the argument. Is she really unable to say two things? The first is that if the Government’s view on this prevails and the amendment is not accepted, she will give a commitment that if, sometime in the next few months, it becomes clear that there is not going to be a properly designated organisation on both sides, the Government will then legislate, in emergency legislation, to ensure that the other side will not be deprived of any funds. If she gave that undertaking, it would be very helpful. If she cannot give that undertaking, will she at least take this away and look at it a bit longer? We have a space between now and Report and I do not believe that this amendment is open to the suggestion of unfairness. As far as I know, nobody in Scotland complained.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, I do not think that the Committee would wish to contemplate even further legislation, but I can certainly contemplate further consideration on the basis of what the noble Lord has said. I have to say that I thought we had considered properly before today, but of course I always listen to the points made by the noble Lord and am prepared to do so before Report.
Lord Collins of Highbury
I have a question for the noble Lord about the potential risk. My understanding is that the risk is not simply gaming on the part of one side to deprive the other of funding. We constantly talk about funding when, actually, it is access to broadcast, access to free mail and all the other things that go with being a designated organisation. In evaluating the risk, does the noble Lord recognise a difficulty? Say, for example, there is no consensus among the leave campaign, so we end up with three, two or four organisations. Is the Electoral Commission, in those circumstances, permitted to decide on the merits of two or three, or does it have to say there is no lead designation?
Lord Hannay of Chiswick
I am not knowledgeable enough to answer the noble Lord’s question. I shall come to the Minister’s last intervention, which was helpful, in a minute, but I think she underestimates the range of possibilities.
Of course, our own Constitution Committee has raised the issue of gaming and that must be one risk, but I think there are other risks. One concerns whatever attempt the Electoral Commission makes to come to a conclusion about the designated organisation on the leave side. I do not think there will be any problem on the remain side—I cannot be certain about that, but I do not think there will be; it does not look as though there will be—but on the other side there is obviously the potential for a really serious problem. There are already two organisations, a third is said to be going to enter the fray, and if these organisations go on slugging it out and the Electoral Commission tries to adjudicate, the matter could then go to judicial review. The decision of the Electoral Commission could be appealed on judicial review. That would mean, as the present law is drafted, that the remain campaign would be deprived of all the advantages that exist for a designated organisation. That is pretty serious, frankly. What I feel is unreasonable about this is that, were this amendment accepted, none of that would happen.
I accept the noble Baroness’s offer to take this away and reflect further; she is always extremely fair in her dealings with the House. She has said she will go away and consider this further and that there will be further contacts with various noble Lords who have tabled amendments. We have a little time before Report, but I honestly think that the risk, even if it is a 1% risk, should be dealt with here and now. The case for that is pretty strong. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
European Union Referendum Bill
Lord Hannay of Chiswick Excerpts(9 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
I will come on to address these points, because I took the opportunity of checking a few facts. For example, just before the dinner break, I did not know why when we were supposed to be discussing what is in Britain’s interest we continued to discuss what is in Norway’s or Iceland’s interest—but, as people have raised it and have said they want facts, I have found the following quote from the Icelandic Prime Minister from June this year. The noble Lord has already read this quote, but he did not put it in his speech. The Icelandic Prime Minister said:
“'For us staying outside of the European Union has been very important, even instrumental in getting us out of the economic crisis so it has affected us in positive ways, giving us control over our own natural resources, but also having control over our own legislation and our own currency, which if we had not had that, we would not be in the situation where we are now with a very fast improving economy”.
When I said earlier that nobody in Norway wanted to join the European Union and I was shot down and told by the noble Lord that the establishment wanted to join the EU, I thought that I had better check what the position was. I found that seven out of 10 Norwegians would reject EU membership and just 19% would like to join. Seventy-four per cent would say no to Norway joining the EU, with 17% wanting to join—these figures are from an opinion poll in 2014.
The noble Lord mentioned Switzerland. According to a 2012 poll for the Swiss Broadcasting Corporation, just 6% of Swiss voters favoured joining the EU against 63% who want the present bilateral arrangements preserved, and 11% who want to join the EEA. There does not seem to be any great feeling in either of those countries that they have made some dreadful mistake; on the contrary, they seem very happy. The Norwegians are very happy with their fish, their oil and their prosperity.
Then we have the bogus argument that says that if you are outside, you have to accept a huge amount of legislation which you would have no say over. I do not know whether the figures in the Daily Telegraph—the noble Lord tells me that that is where they were from—that say that the last 74 times we have objected to things we have been defeated are correct, but those people who argue that we need to stay in to have a say should tell us how effective that say is because the evidence is that it is not very effective. The noble Lord, I know, has conspired with me and other Ministers to turn defeat into an apparent victory in drafting the press release after one such defeat.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick
The noble Lord is very kind. He seems to be a glutton for information. May I recommend that he reads two slim volumes produced by an all-party panel, first in 2014 and then 2015, called The British Influence Scorecard? They looked at every part of European policy and concluded that Britain’s influence in the European Union was considerable. I am sure that he would find that a very enlightening read, and it is not as long as some of the documents around.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
I agree entirely with all the points that the noble Lord has made. In the context of the late Edward Heath—with whom I got on very well personally while not agreeing with many of his views—that is the same Edward Heath who was elected on a Selsdon manifesto but did a U-turn and came to the conclusion that it was not possible to govern our country without the consent of the trade unions. However, a certain Lady Thatcher was elected in 1975 as leader of the Conservative Party on a manifesto which said that Britain is able to govern itself and that it is possible to restore the authority of Parliament. This resulted in her election as Prime Minister in 1979 and all the things that were said to be impossible were turned around. It was her belief in Britain and its ability to stand proud in the world which transformed our economic achievements during the 1980s.
This fatalism, this extraordinary idea that we are trapped in the European Union and that there is nothing we can do to escape it—that we might as well knuckle under and accept that we have got to be a part of it in order to advance what influence we have—is the politics of surrender.
The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, accuses me of making a campaigning speech. I do not know what he was doing when he wrote his letter to the Sunday Times, signed by other fellow mandarins. I have listened to his amendments and the constant prattling on about Iceland and Norway when they are totally irrelevant to this discussion. Most people in Britain would find it offensive being treated alongside Iceland as an equivalent party. I hope my noble friend will reject this amendment. I do not support it.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick
My Lords, we have been on an extraordinary, lengthy digression which bore not the slightest relationship—the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, might like to listen to this as I am referring to his speech—to the amendment we are discussing.
I would like to go back and simply make two points. First, it is not sufficiently recognised that if the electorate were to vote to leave the European Union a decision would have to be taken by the Government—not by the leave campaign—as to what the future relationship they would wish to have should be. The purpose of the amendment is to ask the Government what relationship they would envisage in those circumstances. Is that an unreasonable thing to ask? I do not think so. Every time that the basic issue about Britain being in or not in the European Union has come up, every government White Paper and document has reviewed the alternatives. That was true in the times of Harold Macmillan and Edward Heath, and it was true in both attempts when Harold Wilson sought to join and when he had a referendum. It is a perfectly reasonable thing to do.
Judging from the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, I have the impression that he would hate what the Government said they would envisage doing if there was a no vote. He would have every right to riddle it through with bullets as he has riddled everything through with bullets this evening. However, surely it is right that the British people, the electorate, should be told what relationship the Government would envisage if they chose to vote to leave. That is a reasonable thing to ask, is it not?
Baroness Morgan of Ely (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, with his vast experience of working within EU institutions, knows better than us how the EU works and what the various alternatives to membership might be. No one here disputes the fact that we would wish to continue in some kind of trade relationship with the EU. To those who ask for figures, I cite IMF figures that state that 51% of our trade in goods is with the EU, as is 41% of our trade in goods and services. We would undoubtedly wish to have some kind of trading relationship with it.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, it is indeed important. Perhaps I did not take enough care to explain the position. The amendment is asking the Government to do something that is impossible because they are barred from knowing what the agreement will be by the text of Article 50, which states:
“A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union”.
It then goes on to give the procedure. All I am saying is that the second part of the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, asks the Government to leap over that and to say in advance of even notifying the European Council of their intent to withdraw what should be acceptable to the other states within the European Union in the event of a withdrawal. It is hypothetical simply because the Government cannot predict what will be acceptable to other states before there has been a referendum, before this country has taken a decision, and before this Government have been able to notify the European Council in accord with Article 50 if it takes a decision to leave. I am merely pointing out the procedure. I am sorry if I truncated that, thus making it less clear.
The second amendment in this group—Amendment 26 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Liddle—would create a similar statutory requirement for the Secretary of State to commission and publish an objective assessment of the alternatives to the UK’s membership of the EU in advance of the referendum.
Amendment 32A, spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, calls for the Government to set out the relationship that it envisages with Ireland in the event of a vote to leave the European Union. I appreciate the reasons why she has put this forward and the importance of our relationship with Ireland. Her proposed report would also need to be published by the Government 12 weeks before the date of the referendum. I mentioned when replying to an earlier group of amendments the danger of imposing arbitrary deadlines given the possibility of legal challenge. I hope that I can be a little more helpful in saying that—
Lord Hannay of Chiswick
Will the noble Baroness kindly address the first part of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, to which she has not replied? I understand what she is saying about acceptability. I have no doubt that if the Government stated what they envisaged, quite a few people in the other 27 member states would answer the acceptability problem quite promptly. Will she address the problem about what the Government envisage doing if there were a vote to leave the European Union?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, as I said, perhaps I can be more helpful. The noble Lord has been patient. I am now getting to the point that he wishes to hear. Noble Lords may recall the Prime Minister’s words last week in the other place, when he said,
“if we do not get what we need in our renegotiation I rule absolutely nothing out. I think that it is important that as we have this debate as a nation we are very clear about the facts and figures and about the alternatives”.—[Official Report, Commons, 28/10/15; col. 345.]
As I mentioned earlier today, if we are to put an obligation on the Government, the Committee would need to think very carefully about the terminology used. That goes to part of the debate we have just had. I have concerns about some of the wording used in these amendments. I can understand the good will behind some of it but there would be uncertainty about what the objective obligation specifically requires. While the Government acknowledge the importance of providing balanced information, this requirement could be an undue source of criticism, as there can often be a surprising—or, rather, unsurprising, I should say, given what we have heard tonight—level of disagreement about what counts as objective.
I think there has been a very fair reflection tonight of the feelings on all sides of the argument and about how fairness and evenness may not be perceived as such by others. It is a very serious matter to which we all need to address our greatest concentration in considering how we make progress on these issues. As I advised the Committee earlier, the Government will now think carefully about the issue of public information and consider what we may be able to bring forward by way of an amendment on Report. I continue to listen with interest to the arguments put forward by the Committee. Each of these groups of amendments has rounded out the debate more fully and started to crystallise some of the areas where there may be some agreement and those where perhaps there is unlikely ever to be agreement.
In the light of the answer I have given, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, will withdraw his Amendment 24. I urge other noble Lords with amendments in this group not to move them when we reach them.
European Union Referendum Bill
Lord Hannay of Chiswick Excerpts(9 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, whatever one’s view on the value and democratic viability of referendums—my own remains somewhat between the sceptical and negative, rather closer to those of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London and the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, than to some others: a scepticism that was reinforced by the experience of the recent referendum in Greece—the matter of holding an in/out referendum in this country before the end of 2017 was settled, so far as I am concerned, on 7 May, when a party with a commitment to such a referendum won an overall majority in the House of Commons.
Our constitutional practice means that the Bill enabling such a referendum to be held must go into the statute book without undue delay, leaving the Government some flexibility as to the date in 2016 or 2017 that they choose to hold the vote—a flexibility which I suggest is essential if Britain’s negotiating hand in Brussels is not to be damagingly constrained. I respect that practice, which does not of course preclude amendments to the Bill—and they will not be blocking amendments. The noble Lord who spoke before me seems to have ignored the fact that his own party gave the vote to 16 and 17 year-olds in Scotland. Are they paying tax? I do not know.
We need to think very long about the possibility of amending the Bill because there are shortcomings in its present form and they are capable of being divided, as most speakers have done, into two categories: franchise and policy. If I have heard the phrase “the people must have their say on our EU membership” once, I have heard it a hundred times and I have no doubt that it will, and has, come up in this debate. But who are the people who are to have their say? That is the question. It surely demands great care and imagination when one considers that the decision being taken will last far longer than a single Parliament and will affect fundamentally far more people than currently get the vote in our parliamentary elections, which is the franchise in the Bill before us.
The essence of democracy is surely that people who will be affected by a decision should have their say on it. Here there are three groups who, in the Government’s Bill, will not have their say on it. First, the 16 and 17 year-olds. This group of young people was given the vote in the Scottish referendum last year and the general view seems to be that they exercised it responsibly and in large numbers. So why are they not to be given the vote in this referendum—which, like last year’s vote, will affect their lives for far longer than the rest of us?
The second group comprises British citizens living elsewhere in the European Union who lose their vote after 15 years outside this country. The manifesto of the party with a majority in the Commons contains a commitment to give them a vote in future parliamentary elections, quite rightly in my view—so why on earth are they to be excluded from the one vote that they are most likely to want to exercise? That does not make much sense, and I regard it as pretty aberrant myself.
There is also the question of EU citizens who have been for a certain time in the UK. They, too, were given the vote in the referendum in Scotland. They, too, will be fundamentally affected by the outcome of this referendum. It is surely anomalous that Irish and Commonwealth citizens should be able to vote—which I personally welcome and support—while French, Dutch, Poles and other EU citizens will not. Do we seriously dispute that the German or Italian citizen living here will have more at stake in the outcome than will a Sri Lankan or a Kenyan?
Switching now to the policy issues raised by this legislation, there is, above all, the need to provide voters with objective information for which no provision is made under the Bill. There will be plenty of advocacy on both sides of the argument—I may be responsible for some of it myself—but it will not be, and will not be intended to be, unbiased. Yet as we know from opinion polling, the public are not much interested in, or knowledgeable about, much of the important technical detail of our EU membership. There is a general lack of the sort of independent analysis from outside government bodies such as the Office for Budget Responsibility, or like the Institute for Fiscal Studies provides on election manifestos before general elections.
Surely we need a statutory requirement on the Government to ensure that objective information is made available in good time. There is also, after all, plenty of recent evidence-based material to draw on in the form of the last Government’s Review of the Balance of Competences. That may be too long and too detailed for the average voter to absorb, but surely a digest of its conclusions could be made available to the electorate. There is the crucial matter of the possible consequences of a no vote. It is a vital requirement that the electorate should know what would happen in those circumstances, however much I hope they will not arise. Otherwise, a no vote will be a simple leap in the dark. That is becoming a little bit of a mantra now, but it is true nevertheless.
We have seen that happen recently in Greece. This is not just about the trading alternatives—EEA, Switzerland, or none of the above—important though the choice in that respect will be. We also need to know what will happen to farm policy, research policy, law and order issues and business regulation—all of which would be fundamentally affected by a decision to withdraw. These consequential issues need to be spelled out by the Government because it will be they, not the no campaign, who will be left holding the baby if a majority of the electorate votes to leave.
In 1975 the Government produced a document called, If We Say No. I suggest that the Minister might like to have a look at it and consider whether the Government should reissue a document of a similar nature. It was sent to all electors. It was clear and well written, and much of it is as relevant today as the day it was written.
A contribution to this debate would not be complete without a word on the implications of an EU referendum for our own union within the United Kingdom. These could be far-reaching and dramatic, particularly in the event of a vote to leave the EU. Who seriously doubts—I know that the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, seems to doubt it, but I have not found many people who do—that a vote in the face of a Scottish vote to remain and by the rest of us to leave would trigger another independence referendum in that country, which would be all too likely to prevail? Who seriously doubts that a decision to separate the two parts of the island of Ireland into one part outside and one part inside the EU would be a major factor destabilising the Good Friday agreement, which is already under considerable strain? These issues are critical for our national future and should surely give pause for thought to anyone thinking of leaving.
I conclude by saying that the debate will obviously be pretty sharp. I hope that it will not be dominated by negative clamour. The purposes for which the European Communities were founded more than 60 years ago were noble: to put behind us for ever the appalling history of disastrous conflicts in order to achieve security and prosperity for all Europeans. They remain as true and valid today as they were then.
After a hesitant start, this country has played a significant and influential part in shaping the European Union. Look at the single market, the liberalisation of world trade, development policies and the inclusion of countries in central, eastern and southern Europe. There you will see policy choices and outcomes in which we took part and in which we should now take pride. I believe that it is in our interest to continue along that road and to strengthen the European Union in a flexible and pragmatic way. I sincerely hope that this referendum will do precisely that.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, I did not say that in the slightest. I was correcting the impression that the Cabinet had made the decision to give the vote to 16 and 17 year-olds. I would not wish the accurate facts to be misunderstood: the Cabinet took the decision that the decision should be devolved to Scotland. I think it is right that Scotland made the decision because it was a referendum about the position of Scotland.
The Wales Bill will give to the Welsh Assembly the power to determine the voting age for Welsh Assembly and local elections in Wales. This change will not be made in time for the 2016 elections.
It is a fact that devolution gives rise to inconsistencies. I appreciate that there will be very lively debate on these matters when we get to Committee. Noble Lords have said, in support of extending the franchise to 16 and 17 year-olds, that we should value their views. We do. Others have said that young people are engaged and politically active, and that they are able to take these decisions. Indeed, this may well be true, but it is also true of many 15 year-olds, and we have not had a thorough debate on where the franchise should extend. One or two noble Lords referred to the fact that political engagement is not necessarily true of all 50 year-olds, but that is another matter. Political engagement, surely, or lack of it, should not be enough justification for giving or denying a vote to someone.
As I set out this morning, we believe that changing the entitlement to vote should be achieved through specific legislation. It should be considered properly; there should be full consultation; it should be considered through both Houses of Parliament in the normal manner; and it should command a consensus. Although I hear very strongly the views of the House today about 16 and 17 year-olds, I say to noble Lords that there is not consensus on this matter at the moment. I shall look forward to hearing further arguments in favour of changes to the franchise when we reach Committee. Apparently, Parliament has not had the time to scrutinise properly the implications of such a change.
The question of EU citizens voting has also been raised and debated. There is nothing in the EU treaties that says that EU citizens should be allowed to vote in referendums or parliamentary elections in other EU member states. This is for member states themselves—meaning this Parliament—to determine. It is the norm across the EU that EU citizens are not able to vote in national polls in other member states. I am not aware of any other member state that would extend such a vote to citizens of other EU states.
British citizens were not enfranchised, for example, in the Dutch or French referendums of 2005. Many EU nationals who have lived here for many years are a valued part of our society, and many of them choose to take UK citizenship. Whatever the cost, they choose to do so. They will, therefore, have the right to vote.
There are also questions about why certain people living overseas cannot vote.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick
Will the noble Baroness recognise the point made by an earlier speaker that none of the precedents she talks about in the European Union relates to a country voting on whether to leave the European Union? The argument for giving EU citizens here the vote is that their rights are going to be fundamentally affected. They were not fundamentally affected in the same way by these other referendums. I think, therefore, that it would be good if she could recognise that there is a total difference in nature between this referendum and the others that have taken place in the European Union.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, I always respect the views of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay. Indeed, this is the first time that a country is facing the opportunity to vote to leave the European Union, but it is my understanding, from colleagues across Europe, that they certainly viewed the referendums held there as being of great seriousness for the future of their countries.
I have been asked specific questions. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, asked how many British citizens live abroad. There are a number of different estimates, but in 2013 the United Nations estimated that there were 5.2 million British-born migrants abroad, of whom 1.3 million were in other EU member states. There are, however, no figures distinguishing how many have been away for longer than 15 years. I know from visiting our embassies overseas that when British citizens travel or settle, they do not usually let the embassy know—so we do not have the opportunity to gather that information.
Noble Lords asked about removing the 15-year rule for overseas voters. We are committed to doing so; it was in our manifesto; and we are keeping the promises in our manifesto. A Bill will be brought forward, but it will be a Bill to consider the matter of franchise and not something to be rushed through in time for any particular piece of legislation in this Session.
I was also asked about an anomaly by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, who commented that Peers overseas can vote if they have been there for more than 15 years and others cannot. What I can say to her is that Peers are in the same position as anybody else. If they are resident overseas and have been for more than 15 years, they are subject to the same 15-year rule, just like any other British citizens resident overseas.
There was very strong debate on public information, with the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Ely, the noble Lords, Lord Hannay, Lord Jay, Lord Tugendhat, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard and Lord Cavendish of Furness, and many others very properly saying that it was important that the public should be able to make their decision based on reliable information. It is difficult to know how individuals determine what they believe to be reliable information, but that is something we will have to consider. I listened very carefully indeed to every noble Lord who made points about the publication of material, whether it was by government, whether it was government to commission work from the OBR, whether it was government to provide some statistics that would be in some way scientific and independent, or whether it was a White Paper. I would like to consider further exactly what that material might look like and what kind of information could be produced that is proper and helpful, and noble Lords have a strong role to play in those discussions.
Clearly, there is a role for the Government in all that. The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, proposed that there should be a White Paper on the matter of leaving the European Union. Whatever information is produced by the Government should also say very strongly what the implications are of staying in the European Union, because it is a matter of inviting people to make a decision between remaining and leaving. Therefore, the Government’s duty is to look at both those matters.
The Bill is all about putting the question to the British people. It does not make provision about what happens next. I was asked whether the result would be legally binding. Clearly, at the moment, it is not sensible for us to guess about the best way to implement the result, but, as the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, said, this would be the first time that a member state had had the opportunity to vote to leave. If we got to the position where the country decided that it wished to leave, we would then get into the newer territory of working through those procedures.
Perhaps I may deal first with whether the result would be legally binding. I was asked by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London whether the Government would respect the result of the referendum. The Prime Minister has made it clear that we will respect the result of the referendum even though it is not legally binding. In March 2010, the Constitution Committee of this House considered referendums in the UK and concluded that, because of the sovereignty of Parliament, they could not be truly legally binding—my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth was on the Constitution Committee, so I know that he will appreciate the details of that.
With regard to the process of leaving, I was asked about the Article 50 process by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, I believe. She nods her assent. The Prime Minister, of course, is focused on success, as I mentioned earlier, so we are not going to speculate on might what might happen if there is a vote to leave the European Union. In general terms, and I have certainly had advice on this before from my noble friend Lord Bowness, Article 50 provides a mechanism for states to withdraw from the EU. Once a member state has notified the European Council of its intention to withdraw, it would have to negotiate its future relationship with the EU. This is agreed by a qualified majority of the member states, with the consent of the European Parliament. Article 50 gives a limit of two years for these negotiations, which can be extended with unanimous agreement before the treaties cease to apply.
While I am dealing with individual questions, I will refer to one from the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, who asked about the implications of the lobbying Act. The Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Act does not prevent companies setting out their views on EU membership. That Act amended the rules for third parties campaigning in elections; it did not amend the rules for campaigning in referendums. The Bill applies Part 7 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act, which sets out the rules for campaigning at referendums. These rules do not prevent companies making their views known to workforces and customers.
On campaigning itself, the campaign rules were considered in another place. It has been such a long time since PPERA was passed in 2000 that the House of Commons agreed to uprate the spending figures in line with inflation. Fact sheets are available with information on that. Noble Lords rightly concentrated their fire on the whole issue of Section 125 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act. This concerns restrictions placed on publicly funded bodies and individuals on publishing certain material in relation to the referendum in the final 28 days of the campaign. The restrictions of this section will apply in full following an amendment made on Report in the other place. The power to which noble Lords referred to set out in regulations any exemptions to those rules was also added to the Bill at the same stage. Clause 6, which stands in the Bill before us, was passed without vote in the other place. There was no dissent. It is only proper that any regulations made using this clause will be subject to the affirmative procedure in both Houses.
To my noble friend Lord Lamont and the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, I can say that Section 125 places a restriction on publishing material that deals with,
“any of the issues raised by”,
the referendum question. Publication means to make something available to,
“any section of the public, in whatever form”.
We are now taking stock, as I mentioned earlier, reviewing the implications of living with Section 125 in full and determining whether that is possible or whether we will need to use the power to make regulations.